June 1990 Print

Frank Denke

"Liberty, correctly understood, is the right to choose between good things... " (Bishop Sheen)

Do the following quotes seem to express the same idea (emphasis added)?

1. "No man can be interfered with for (expressing)... even his religious opinions, provided their manifestation does not trouble the public order."
   
2. "Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true."
   
3. "Nor is anyone to be restrained (in matters religious) in acting with his own beliefs whether privately or publicly... provided the just requirements of public order are observed."
   

If you feel that the three quotes are three ways of saying the same thing, that is, that man is to be left alone to pursue and profess any religious belief he chooses, it might interest you to know the origin of these quotes. Number (1) is Article Ten of the masonic document called the "Rights of Man." It was created on the footsteps of the bloody and violently anti-Catholic French Revolution of 1789. The purpose of this document was to destroy the sovereignty of God over man and civil society. Number (2) is the form of this masonic idea that was specifically condemned by Pius IX and is quoted from his Syllabus (proposition 15).

Number (3) is Vatican II's definition of "religious liberty", affirmed by Vatican II's document, "Religious Liberty". Interestingly, the editor's footnote in my edition of Vatican II's Document on "Religious Liberty" says, "It was not the intention of the Council to affirm that the argument (3), as made in the text, is final and decisive" (The Documents of Vatican II, Edited by Walter Abbott, S.J.; The America Press, 1966). Since what Vatican II claimed as "religious liberty" is not "final and decisive", let's look at it.

The Arguments

The recent catalyst to widening the discussion on "Religious Liberty" as defined by Vatican II seems to have been Archbishop Lefebvre's book, They Have Uncrowned Him. On one side of the discussion are those who agree with the Archbishop that something fundamental to the traditional definition of religious liberty was abandoned by Vatican II. Others represented by Fr. Harrison (at least in the pages of Fidelity'), argue that nothing of substance was really changed.

In putting forth his arguments, Fr. Harrison calls those who agree with the Archbishop "Lefebvrists". In keeping with his convention, we shall call those who agree with Fr. Harrison, "Harrisonists".

The Harrisonists appear to agree with the Vatican II definition of "Religious Liberty" which says that men possess a "natural right", rooted in their "dignity", to be free from State interference to publicly practice and promote their religious errors. They further claim that this definition conforms to traditional Catholic teaching.

Additionally, Fr. Harrison claims (in this March's Fidelity):

1. That no "Lefebvrist" has been able to clearly state his position regarding the opposing premise: "Under no circumstances whatever does any non-catholic have a natural right to immunity from State coercion in publicly manifesting his religion."
   
2. That, regarding Religious Liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), Fr. Yves Congar is "too competent a scholar to have suggested the preposterous idea that (Vatican II's) Dignitatis Humanae says "materially just about the opposite of" certain pre-Vatican II positions upheld by Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors.
   
3. That Archbishop Lefebvre interprets Catholic teaching with such "undue severity and rigor" that his position (on religious liberty) "logically leads to the view that non-Catholics in Russia suffer no injustice when Soviet leaders close down their churches"—a proposition that would have "amused" Stalin... So say the Harrisonists.

Responses

In answer to the Harrisonists, the traditional Catholic position is that only when men are doing what is right in God's eyes do they posses an inviolable, natural right to immunity from State interference. Man possesses no natural right to demand immunity from God's authority in the State in order to do or practice what is wrong (i.e. to violate any of God's Ten Commandments, including the First).

Let's dig a little deeper by addressing the Harrisonist arguments one by one.

Answer to (1): ("Under no circumstances..." etc.) Man may never claim a right to do—or be allowed to do—what is wrong in God's eyes, for man's right always corresponds with his duties, and his duties are only towards that which is right, good and true. Man's rights are thus limited to doing what is truly right. To deviate from doing what is right is to give up your right to do it.

That being said, at times it may nevertheless be prudent for the State, in a particular situation, to tolerate certain false religious practices as the lesser of two evils. The issue here, however, is prudence. The Church, prior to Vatican II, had never recognized a "human right" in man to freely practice and promote his religious errors in opposition to the One, True Faith that was revealed and established by God Himself, namely the Holy Catholic Faith.

An analogy may help make the point clear. It is one thing for the host of a party to tolerate a guest's bad manners. It would, however, be absurd for the guest to claim he not only has a "right" to his bad manners, but that the host has "no right" to interfere. It would be just as absurd for a child to tell his parents that, based upon his "dignity", he has a right to be left alone to do something wrong.

The Harrisonists ask, "can't anyone claim a 'right of immunity' from God's authority in State (or parent) in order to practice error?" The answer is a firm "NO", with no exceptions. Error has no rights. Error is a forbidden fruit in which no one, whether king or peasant, Catholic or not, old or young, rich or poor can claim a "right of immunity" to indulge.

Answer to (2): The issue here for the Harrisonists is that someone other than the Archbishop finds in Vatican II's "Dignitatis Humanae " (Religious Liberty) anything but what pre-Vatican II Popes had taught. ("Fr. Yves Congar is too competent a scholar to have suggested the preposterous idea...etc.").

Since Fr. Congar is held to be a competent scholar by Fr. Harrison, I need only quote Fr. Congar himself: "It cannot be denied that such a text (the conciliar declaration on religious liberty) says materially anything but what the Syllabus of 1864 said, and even practically the contrary of propositions 15, 77 and 79 of that document". (Fr. Congar's book, Archbishop Lefebvre and the Crisis in the Church, pp. 51, 52).

Answer to (3): ("The Archbishop interprets Catholic teaching with undue rigor..." etc.). The Archbishop's position, as I understand it, was already covered in my answer to (1). I would only repeat that the proper reaction of the State to the public practice of any false religion must reflect the virtue of prudence. That is, given a particular situation in the State, it shares with the Church a certain responsibility in choosing the best way to bring its citizens closer to the practice of truth, and ultimately to the salvation of their souls. I fail to see how this position (not the characterization of it by the Harrisonists) would, in any way, "logically" support the Stalinist persecution of non-Catholics in Russia.

It might be worth adding that, in strict justice, nothing is offended by closing any place where false morals or false faith is practiced. To close an abortion clinic does not offend against justice, nor would closing a house of ill repute or of false worship. This action, however, must be done in order to correct a wrong, not to brutalize nor to bring about a worse situation than the one being corrected.

To those who would say that the State has no competence to make judgments regarding religious practices, two points should be considered: (1) In the natural order, some truths are evident to the State no less than to the individual. Certainly the State can forbid idolatry, devil worship and polygamy under the natural law. (2) While the state is not competent in the supernatural order, it has the same competence as the individual to recognize the marks of the True Church by the manifest signs that declare it. From this it has a duty to seek and hear the judgments of the Church and to apply them. God has not denied to the State the ability given to men to discover His visible Church and its truth.

One might ask the modern State on what basis does it feel competent to reject the truths of the Church? It is by listening to the ignoble ideas of the Masons, constantly telling the State to think of itself as unable to decide between right and wrong, that the State has itself decided to appear to be a moral idiot. The State, as instituted by God, has a much higher calling. It is capable of finding it.

Principles and Religious Liberty

A principle is like a castle gate, locked to protect what is within. To abandon a principle is to unlock the gate. Once it is unlocked, whether from the outside or from the inside, the enemy will push it open as far as possible to allow all manner of evil to enter and take over.

We all know that man, beguiled like Eve, becomes rather inventive when it comes to catering to his fallen nature. This inventiveness has not been missing from the area of his religious practices. Men are also creative when it comes to justifying for themselves, under the headings of "liberty" and "freedom", the right to do their own will rather than God's will. To accomplish this, men's "rights" must no longer be limited to doing what is right or believing what is true.

Consider, for example, Vatican II's claim that "This (right to) immunity (from State intervention to practice whatever religion man chooses) continues to exist even in those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking truth and adhering to it." This new "right" is obviously not based upon man's obligation to seek and do God's will, but upon man himself. That men may now claim a "right of immunity" to adhere to even a "little bit" of error in faith and morals is to abandon a Catholic principle. It is like arguing that men have a right to immunity from State interference to adhere to a "little bit" of infidelity... not to one's spouse, but to God. It is to argue that Moslems (among others) have a "natural right" of immunity from State interference to practice polygamy.

Recalling that the gods of the pagans are devils, this "right" of immunity forces even the Catholic State to not merely tolerate, but to recognize as a positive right man's open profession of religious error. In short, even the Catholic State would be forced to give men permission to offend God, limited only by the "just requirements of public order" (Vatican II). Does it make any difference? Yes. What is to keep even satanists from now claiming this "right" of immunity to worship their "god" without State interference... especially if they threaten to disrupt the public order unless their "right" is recognized?

As men cease to bind their rights to anything other than the fulfilling of their human obligations before God, the words "human rights" lose their true meaning, becoming merely a measure of man's rebellion against his Creator. Witness the demands of men for immunity from State interference to practice "gay rights", "abortion rights", the "right to divorce", and, ultimately, the right to be free to practice his religious errors. The common denominator of all these claims is immunity from God's authority, for men to do what is wrong.

Conclusion

Roe vs. Wade claimed a new "right" for men: the "right to privacy", that men may be free from State interference to even violate God's Fifth Commandment.

Vatican II's redefinition of "religious liberty" claims for men a new "right to privacy", that men may be free from State interference to even violate God's First Commandment.

In an age when the "rights of man" are being everywhere promoted over the rights of God, Vatican II's document on Religious Liberty concedes too much to the spirit of our times.

As Bishop Sheen has said, liberty is the right to choose between good things. That being true, Vatican II's document on "Religious Liberty", by offering the same protection to the practice of religious error as religious truth, has more in common with license than liberty.